Stem cell research is touted as the way to a medical revolution, but all too often accusations of poor practice arise. To glean some insight into why, New Scientist asked 1000 stem cell researchers from around the world to answer an anonymous survey about the pressures of their work. More than 110 replied. Some admitted to faked results, others told of unethical behaviour from superiors, and several placed the blame on high-profile journals.

Just over half believe stem cell research is under greater scrutiny than other biomedical fields. "It is because the implications for therapeutics are greater than in other areas," said one researcher. Almost a fifth said this affects their work. Some said it made them more rigorous, while others said they feel forced to find clinical applications too soon.

Sixteen per cent said they have felt pressure to submit a paper that was incomplete or contained unverified information. "There is a tremendous pressure to publish, in order to receive funding. Shortcuts are, therefore, not unusual," said one respondent. "It happens when we know competitors are going to publish the same story," admitted a principal investigator.

Falsified data

Several researchers said they felt pressure to publish or perish. "You have to rush things out or miss critical career fellowships," said one.

Three people said they had felt pressure from peers or superiors to falsify data, or to do something they consider unethical, and five people said "yes" when asked if they or a colleague had ever falsified or augmented data that ended up in a published paper. "I know of numerous instances where fellows with, at times, the knowledge of their mentors, have published falsified data," said one professor.

Superiors received some of the blame. "Supervisors and mentors get very excited about data, but some people then become scared to tell them it could not be validated later," said an assistant professor. One postdoc blamed mistakes in his lab's papers on inadequate handling of medical statistics. One professor said: "Sometimes one's job is called into question, and superiors have been known to try and force premature publication and take credit for findings... when they don't even know the content of the work."

Misinterpretation of results was a common concern. "[People] deliberately ignore inconvenient data in order to support their likely erroneous conclusions," said one assistant professor.

Journals and journalists

The results echo a 2009 study that spanned all scientific fields, says Ivan Oransky, co-founder of website Retraction Watch. In that, 2 per cent admitted to falsification or fabrication, and about a third admitted to other questionable research practices.

In the extra comments section of our survey, journals came in for criticism: "The review process has become a playground of promoting personal opinions, rather than evaluating the actual science," said one assistant professor. A group leader said the refereeing process at top journals "often asks for over-elaborate, costly and time consuming experiments rather than ensuring the basic core finding is sound".

In response, a spokesperson for Nature, which published the papers being scrutinised (DOI: 10.1038/nature12968; DOI: 10.1038/nature12969), says: "The editors select research for publication on the basis of scientific significance, and each published paper undergoes robust, rigorous peer review. We are always looking for ways to improve our processes to best serve the community and will continue to do so going forward."

Many researchers pinned blame on journalists with "5 minute attention spans", saying they had overhyped the field, making stem cells seem like a cure-all.

The field was described as "a mess" by one senior researcher with 20 years experience, and as having a "very unhealthy, competitive attitude, nourished by top tier journals", by another.

Field of dreams

Thankfully, despite these comments, the consensus was that most stem cell research is accurate. "Just because there is an occasional controversy we must be careful not to damn the entire field and throw the baby out with the bathwater," said one scientist.

The investigation into the work led by Haruko Obokata at the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan, continues. Co-author Charles Vacanti at Harvard Medical School has released a detailed guide for others to replicate it. A group led by Kenneth Ka-Ho Lee at the Chinese University of Hong Kong is live blogging their attempt at replicating the experiment.

Vacanti says the findings are too significant to disregard based on what he calls relatively minor errors or external pressures. "Over time, the science will speak for itself," he says.

Correction:When we first posted this story, we used the headline: "Stem cell scientists reveal 'unethical' work culture". We have changed it to better reflect the fact that the survey reveals the pressures of the field rather than widespread problems

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Stem cell work, including that published by a team including Haruko Obokata, is subjected to intense scrutiny (Image: The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Images)